MichaelB
Muse
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 555
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Bill Williams
- Start date
- Status
toto
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2002
- Messages
- 733
I would also like to thank everyone concerned with the translation. I was interested in this paragraph as it seems to display some incredulity over the motivations underlying A's calumny of L.:
There seems to be more ambiguity in the following sentence than how the pro guilt people interpret it:
Somewhere the report comments on how they, the writers of the report, agree with the reasoning of Hellman, regarding the calumny charge. Despite the verdict with which many people here disagree, I recall Hellmann giving rather mitigating aspects to A's actions. I wonder if Hellmann could in a sense be regarded as to some degree reinstated?
Another element against her is, certainly, the calumny against Lumumba, which has already been referred to.
It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these serious accusations. The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile, taking into account that the woman must have realised that, sooner or later, these accusations against her employer would have been disproved, considering that she certainly knew that Lumumba had no contact either with Kercher or with the house on via della Pergola. Moreover, the possibility of having an “iron-clad” alibi would then have led to Lumumba being freed and acquitted of the serious accusation.
It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these serious accusations. The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile, taking into account that the woman must have realised that, sooner or later, these accusations against her employer would have been disproved, considering that she certainly knew that Lumumba had no contact either with Kercher or with the house on via della Pergola. Moreover, the possibility of having an “iron-clad” alibi would then have led to Lumumba being freed and acquitted of the serious accusation.
There seems to be more ambiguity in the following sentence than how the pro guilt people interpret it:
On the other hand, if Knox’s presence in the home was certain, it would hardly be credible that he was not with her.
I wonder if they would agree with the word "if".Somewhere the report comments on how they, the writers of the report, agree with the reasoning of Hellman, regarding the calumny charge. Despite the verdict with which many people here disagree, I recall Hellmann giving rather mitigating aspects to A's actions. I wonder if Hellmann could in a sense be regarded as to some degree reinstated?
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
+1, thanks to all.
Any of the wordings presented about a suspicion that Raffaele, or Amanda, was in the cottage at the time of the murder, are BS, whether or not called "strong suspicion", because there is no "reasonable suspicion" that either was there.* The concrete basis for these "suspicions" is the interrogation, which used coercion to obtain statements that the Italian authorities could then wrongfully claim were "suspicious". But Italian procedural law CPP 191 states "evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used".
*A reasonable suspicion is defined by the ECHR as one that is based on information or evidence that suggests it would be plausible to an objective person that the "suspect" had committed a crime. I suggest the "suspicions" mentioned in this part of the MR are fanciful and the result of coercive methods that could yield any "suspicion" the police and prosecutor wished, and thus are not plausible.
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
Mike's question is far more interesting than your trite response (I was going to say 'answer' but as you have completely missed his point I don't think the word is apt). I hope Mike's question is spotted by one of the team and that the point gets picked up before the translation become set in concrete.
In fact, I will pass it along myself.
I apologize if any of my posts are perceived as trite; the topic has it repetitive aspects and my originality is limited. I have indeed tried to limit my posting so as to avoid continually repeating information.
One point I see in Mike's question is that Raffaele was indeed at the cottage, but based on Raffaele's statements and the lack of reliable evidence to the contrary, not at the time of the murder. The wording that Mike suggests would tend to indicate that the Marasca CSC panel acknowledges that in the MR. I leave it to the translators to evaluate the exact rendering of the Marasca CSC MR; I am not disagreeing with Mike.
Several more posts referring to members of the forum rather than the topic of the thread have gone to AAH. The previous modbox was perfectly clear, but let me reiterate that the topic of the thread is not other posters, their motivations or if they should be ignored or not. Please do not breach your MA and pay particular attention to rule 0 and rule 12. This applies to posters on both sides of the argument.
The thread has required considerable moderator actions over the last couple of days, and if significant breaches continue then the mod team will consider putting the thread back on moderated status. I am sure that this is not the goal of the thread posters and it is certainly not the goal of the mod team, so straighten up and fly right.
The thread has required considerable moderator actions over the last couple of days, and if significant breaches continue then the mod team will consider putting the thread back on moderated status. I am sure that this is not the goal of the thread posters and it is certainly not the goal of the mod team, so straighten up and fly right.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Agatha
anglolawyer
Banned
Thanks. You have the brains to aim higher IMO.
I have posted Mike's question in the appropriate place.
I believe the intention of the court is:-
It matters not one iota how strong the suspicion is or may be, in the overall context it doesn't matter because RS's presence in the murder room does not exist, therefore the issue may be labourered for eternity but this evidence is not evidence, it's completely irrelevant...a non-sequitur, red herring sideshow.
???
The references to the ECHR and to Amanda's application are interesting, partly because of the typos contained in the original Marasca CSC panel MR.
In one reference, on page 22 of the translation IIRC, the original text as translated states that Amanda's application was lodged with the "European Court of Justice" (ECJ). The reference court exists and is the top court of the European Union, and separate from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the top court of the Council of Europe, a separate organization from the European Union. The ECJ, as I understand it, specializes in EU trade issues but does do some human rights cases. But the usual supranational court for human rights cases in CoE countries is the ECHR.
In another reference, on page 29 of the translation IIRC, in a discussion of why it would not be legal to use Guede's trial information or his reading of a letter at the AK - RS trial against Knox or Sollecito, the original text as translated states that this would be a violation of "Article 6 letter d of the European Commission of Human Rights". More correctly, the violation is of Article 6.3 letter d of the European Convention of Human Rights.
I do not know whether these typos were the result of careless error or a surprising ignorance.
Last edited:
The Italian Supreme Court seems to be saying exactly what the supporters of Amanda Knox have been saying about the ridiculous motives proposed by the police and warped, biased, illogical thought processes of the Italian judges for years.
I am only on page 33 and the ISC has trashed every Italian nutcase and idiot who contributed to this preposterous injustice.
The guilters in every forum have been lying about what the ISC said, or at least taking excerpts out of context, starting with Barbi.
In the two weeks since the motivation was "explained" by Barbi a great deal of damage control came from the guilters, but because of the hard work of the translators here it will be possible to respond forcefully and explicitly to the lies and misrepresentations of the Hate Amanda Team.
Thanks so much to the translators for providing this document.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Ditto - with the caveat that it was the **Italian speaking** guilters perpetuating this.
Barbie Latza Nadeau is another matter.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Really? Did you miss where it said the murder certainly was not carried out by an unknown burglar; that Amanda was there (fact, by her own account) and covering for Rudy (in case anyone saw him leave the house, and couldn't tell one black guy from another, even if one was young, slender and tall, and the other short, stocky and middle-aged, according to Bruno's brilliant armchair detective skills) and did wash off Mez' blood from her hands. That Raff was with her when she claimed to arrive 10:30 next morning.
In any case, Bruno will never be promoted beyond "Junior" judge, as his reasoning reads like a schoolboy dumping all his knowledge onto the examiner instead of doing what he's asked to, which is answer the question. All the waffle about Gallileo and the scientific method, as if to appeal to authority about the soundness of his logic, instead of actually applying it.
He spends reams trashing the bra clasp scientific method, but then says the DNA on the sweater found to be Rudy's is sound, despite this self-same sweater having lain on the same floor and same flying dust as the bra clasp, with furniture and fittings being moved around, which Bruno claims therefore abnegates the bra clasp evidence.
Bruno states at least five times the traces of Rudy were "numerous" and "abundant", when in fact, there were only about five traces.
Dreadful. I don't know how he passed his law exams.
His inability to grasp that small amounts of DNA are often small because perps are - hello? - cunning and aware of forensics (note to perps: in future, leave more DNA, otherwise the judge will acquit you. _Doh!).
Bruno's rantings about the illogicality of selective cleaning is a straw man, as the prosecution never did argue the perps selectively removed their own DNA. He fails to explain the luminol highlighted footsteps that were obtained. So not Professor Brainiac in the scientific method, after all.
He puts forward defense arguments for Amanda and Raff, which are nowhere to be found in the pleadings (a very elementary legal error). Apparently, although it is certain beyond reasonable doubt Amanda and almost certainly Raff (if perhaps, later) was present in the cottage when the murder was committed, that doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.
He confirms it is beyond reasonable doubt Rudy could NOT have been the sole perpetrator, but says to connect Amanda who definitely was there, would be "illogical".
What a Bloody Fool!
He should be sacked, and Marasca with him, for signing off this pile of treacly garbage.
Last edited:
Yes anglolawyer and thank you. I think it's important.
Swapping the order of two words changes the context and meaning entirely and we all know that different language construct sentences in very different grammatical ways.
To reinterate:-
The Marasca court reiterates that there is valued reason for the court a quo's strong suspicion, and then goes on to list the suspicions but once researched are easily explained and the prosecution's case fall on fallow ground because there is no evidence of the accused being in the murder room at all.
It's extremely important to read Clause 9 in its correct context. Taken alone (and with seemingly minor errors) there is no amount of mischievous misinterpretation that plays into the hands of an extraordinary misinterpretation of the case.
Let me labour the issue. This is the way it should read (in my humble opinion and I mean that sincerely....
It doesn't matter how strong the suspicion of RS in the house (and then lists the suspicions) and even if we (The Marasca Court) can accept or agree that these suspicions do exist, it takes a quantum leap to go from suspicion to guilt given the absence of evidence in the murde room itself.
It doesn't matter how strong the suspicion of RS in the house (and then lists the suspicions) and even if we (The Marasca Court) can accept or agree that these suspicions do exist, it takes a quantum leap to go from suspicion to guilt given the absence of evidence in the murde room itself.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
It was never pleaded that Raff and Amanda were there, but not involved.
Bruno-Marasca have blundered by even pleading this.
Bruno-Marasca have blundered by even pleading this.
anglolawyer
Banned
Judges don't plead.
bagels
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,275
Well in court proceedings that would be routine violations of the 5th and 6th amendments over here what do you expect. They found it as a "judicial fact" that Rudy didn't act alone and Amanda willingly lied about a man she knew to be innocent.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Exactly, so why was Bruno pleading it?
- Status